Jump to content

Let's talk Pete Buttigieg - After that CNN town hall, dude deserves his own thread


Legaltitan

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Pragidealist said:

Maybe.   It is early to put much in polls, but that's how I see it lining up for me personally and my impression from what I've read.  The polls just add confirmation.  There could be a degree of confirmation bias in it though. 

 

Do you see it differently?

I see it as certain candidates are getting a lot of attention right now and that impacts the polls. If the media keeps talking about Buttigieg so much he will stay up in the polls. And if he becomes invisible as Beto has lately, he drops. Same as overwhelming media coverage of Trump boosted him in 2015-2016. 

 

Once the debates begin, everything can change dramatically. 

 

I don’t think most Democratic voters are committed to anyone yet. If Klobuchar has a great 1st debate then she shoots up the polls. If Booker impresses once he gets a little airtime he moves up the polls. If Biden says something stupid (as he often does) then he drops. 

 

Pete has some momentum right now. Certainly that’s good for him and is getting his name out there where he was totally unknown nationally before. But he (like everyone else) needs it a few months down the road heading into Iowa, not now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 570
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” — George Orwell 

Posted Images

Yup. Right now, its just smoke. Until they get in their first debates this Fall (or whenever), nothing at all matters. And even then, the debates pale in comparison to the importance of the very first primaries.

 

I am sure another half dozen candidates will announce over the next few months, but by Jan/Feb, we should be down to only 4-5 candidates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TitansFan777 said:

Yup. Right now, its just smoke. Until they get in their first debates this Fall (or whenever), nothing at all matters. And even then, the debates pale in comparison to the importance of the very first primaries.

 

I am sure another half dozen candidates will announce over the next few months, but by Jan/Feb, we should be down to only 4-5 candidates.

I think most will still be in it through Iowa and New Hampshire. 

 

After Super Tuesday (March 3) I could see them getting down to half a dozen or so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

You guys are putting way too much stock in early polls. They are largely meaningless right now. Certainly they have no bearing on who the nominee will be. 

They aren't meaningless. They are meaningless in terms of who will be the nominee, but polls right now have plenty of meaning.

 

Polls are snapshots that show trends. Right now Buttigieg is trending up strongly.

 

Everyone likes to say that early polls generally favor candidates with the most name recognition. So, if nothing else, this poll shows people are paying attention to Buttigieg and liking what they see and hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

I see it as certain candidates are getting a lot of attention right now and that impacts the polls. If the media keeps talking about Buttigieg so much he will stay up in the polls. And if he becomes invisible as Beto has lately, he drops. Same as overwhelming media coverage of Trump boosted him in 2015-2016. 

 

Once the debates begin, everything can change dramatically. 

 

I don’t think most Democratic voters are committed to anyone yet. If Klobuchar has a great 1st debate then she shoots up the polls. If Booker impresses once he gets a little airtime he moves up the polls. If Biden says something stupid (as he often does) then he drops. 

 

Pete has some momentum right now. Certainly that’s good for him and is getting his name out there where he was totally unknown nationally before. But he (like everyone else) needs it a few months down the road heading into Iowa, not now. 

Absolutetly.  I just don't think that attention is passive. I see it as reflective.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Legaltitan said:

ok - but you started out wagging your finger saying we are "putting too much stock in polls." I don't see anyone doing that.

 

2 hours ago, Legaltitan said:

Damn Klobuchar polling behind Adams who hasn't declared and most likely won't.  She dead.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

I think most will still be in it through Iowa and New Hampshire. 

 

After Super Tuesday (March 3) I could see them getting down to half a dozen or so. 

 

Granted, I have not looked at the schedule of primaries for the DNC. I could see the field getting down to that size by then.

 

As a percentage of total candidates at one point, however, I think it will be like the GOP in 2016, where you had Jindal, Perry, Walker, Pataki, and Graham all drop out before the first primary. Then within the first week or so of February, you had Santorum, Gilmore, Fiorina, Huckabee, Christie, Bush, and Paul all drop out as well. Essentially, 80%+ of the field was knocked out in rapid fire before March.

 

I could certainly see it shrinking to a core of 4-6 as you said by then, which would be impressive due to the absurd size of the field right now. Getting down to 4-6 candidates by then with the amount of candidates this cycle would be like getting down to 2 candidates in any other primary cycle.

 

Unfortunately, I think this upcoming debate/primary season will be very brutal for the DNC. People like Kamala and Biden will have their past jammed down their throat, and really any long term public officials will be killed by their past since the platform of the party has moved quickly to the left in recent years.

Edited by TitansFan777
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Starkiller said:

You guys are putting way too much stock in early polls. They are largely meaningless right now. Certainly they have no bearing on who the nominee will be. 

Well, sure, but it should be instructive.  

 

In that poll, Bernie and Buttigieg combine for 37% of the poll.  I think for a few reasons, both are pro working middle class, non-establishment, and appear authentic.  

 

Biden can bridge those gaps, with the exception of being non-establishment.  

 

Then take away from these early polls tells me the same thing I was telling you in 2016....people are tired of the status quo because it hasn't really worked for them and the working middle class are looking for representation.  Authenticity helps a lot, but not required (Trump).  

 

Any candidate that can't sell these two thoughts and I believe we have a second term for Trump.  

 

So while these polls don't predict a nominee, they should be instructive as to what the people are looking for. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Legaltitan said:

The key is not to read TOO MUCH into polls. But I find it bizarre to say they are "meaningless." Of course they aren't meaningless. 

It certainly has an impact on campaign contributions and their momentum. Avg contributions are down but the number of participants has grown 4x versus a decade ago. The prevailing thought has been these contributors will donate more throughout the campaign season. If this holds true, along with another truism — people don’t like to throw good money into bad bets — then current polling info feeds that process. This could affect momentum as donors become literally invested in a candidate. Ex: Gillibrand’s polling numbers has to give pause to anyone who had any hesitation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This will bolster Mayor Pete’s criticism of a lack of international perspective, while potentially chipping away at the Biden base.

 

A group of five former ambassadors who served under former President Obama are lining up behind Pete Buttigieg, giving the South Bend, Ind., mayor a jolt of institutional fundraising support amid his meteoric rise in the Democratic presidential primary.

The Obama diplomats — Timothy Broas (Netherlands), John Phillips (Italy), Tod Sedgwick (Slovakia), David Jacobson (Canada) and Bill Eacho (Austria) — raised millions of dollars for the Obama-Biden ticket in 2008 and 2012.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/439701-five-former-obama-ambassadors-back-buttigieg

Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Rogue said:

Well, sure, but it should be instructive.  

 

In that poll, Bernie and Buttigieg combine for 37% of the poll.  I think for a few reasons, both are pro working middle class, non-establishment, and appear authentic.  

 

Biden can bridge those gaps, with the exception of being non-establishment.  

 

Then take away from these early polls tells me the same thing I was telling you in 2016....people are tired of the status quo because it hasn't really worked for them and the working middle class are looking for representation.  Authenticity helps a lot, but not required (Trump).  

 

Any candidate that can't sell these two thoughts and I believe we have a second term for Trump.  

 

So while these polls don't predict a nominee, they should be instructive as to what the people are looking for. 

I think polls right now have to be taken into context of fundraising and media attention.  Then we can start to look at who has faded in that same time to start to get a feel for what people want. 

 

Biden and Bernie have been big names for awhile, but so have Warren and Booker.  The fact that Biden and Bernie are showing stability while those are not- is interesting.  

 

Then you have names that started to get traction in the media and polls but seem to have slipped -   Harris and O'Rourke.  

 

Its not hard to look at the ones that are in the top- Biden, Bernie, and Buttigieg and then the ones that either have strong name recognition or were getting attention and now are not  - Harris, O'Rourke, and Warren - and start to see some similarities.  

 

It is still very early and things can shift based on events and responses but as for a state of where things are now- those polls don't seem far off.  

 

The rest haven't yet found a voice to be in the conversation and if a debate was held today- I'm not sure they would be invited.  

 

If I look at the 6 I've mentioned the most. 

 

Biden and Harris fit the moderate segment.  That's been reinforced on here on who are attracted to those two. 

Bernie and Warren have pretty well branded themselves as the progressive voice of the party. 

Then you have Buttigieg and O'Rourke who have been less defined by policy than by their style.   

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...